Work on upgrading the PAFOA infrastructure is nearing completion and entering a testing phase. Throughout March we will begin deploying these changes in phases that should be unnoticeable, but apologize in advance for any temporary issues during the process. Read more

Welcome to the Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association Forum, we hope you like what you find here and we strongly encourage you to register for an account with us, especially if you are from Pennsylvania. Once registered you will have access to participate in our community. Thanks for visiting and we hope you become a regular!

Thanks for visiting our forum! If you ever plan to return you should consider quickly registering for a forum account, especially if you're in Pennsylvania. It's simple to do and best of all free. Once registered you'll be able to participate in our discussions and keep up to date on issues important to Pennsylvania firearm owners!

Thank you for contacting me regarding a treaty on small arms being discussed in the United Nations. I greatly appreciate knowing your thoughts on this important issue.

This month, in a New York convention, the United Nations has been at work drafting a global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) that would create a global registry for the private ownership of firearms. On June 29th, I wrote a bi-partisan letter joined by 129 of my House colleagues to President Obama and Secretary Clinton which expressed my concerns that the proposed treaty infringes on our nation's fundamental, constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.

I firmly believe that the Second Amendment of the Constitution prohibits the federal government from using any means to deny law-abiding citizens the right to own and bear arms. Gun control will merely punish law-abiding citizens, leaving them vulnerable to criminal attack. Our Founding Fathers considered this right paramount to the preservation of democracy, and steps should be taken to ensure that right is protected while preserving the safety of society.

Under the Constitution, the President has the power to make treaties with the consent of two-thirds of the Senate. Furthermore, a number of treaties are "non-self-executing treaties" meaning that they require implementation by both chambers of Congress – the Senate and the House of Representatives – before they can take effect as domestic law. Many treaties whose subject matter overlaps with Congress' lawmaking authority under Article I of the Constitution are non-self-executing treaties. Should implementing legislation for a small arms treaty be presented to the full of House of Representatives for a vote, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind.

I value your input as I represent you here in Washington, and I am committed to addressing the needs and concerns of the Third District. I will do all I can at the federal level to pass legislation that is consistent with the U.S. Constitution and the moral values held by our Founding Fathers.

I encourage you to continue contacting me with your opinions on issues important to you.

If you would like to hear more from me on this issue and others, please subscribe to my newsletter at www.kelly.house.gov.

Thank you for contacting me about the United Nations (U.N.) Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). As an opponent of this treaty, I appreciate hearing from you about this important issue.

Like many Pennsylvanians, I have long been a supporter of Second Amendment rights. They are of fundamental importance to our nation, and I believe that Americans have a personal, constitutional right to self-protection and to engage in recreational activities involving firearms. In fact, during my previous tenure in the House of Representatives (1999-2005), my record of supporting gun owners' rights earned me an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association.

That said, I understand and share your concerns about the ATT. As you may know, this treaty was created in 2006 by U.N. General Assembly Resolution A/RES/61/89. Its purpose is to create international standards for the arms trade. Like you, I am deeply concerned by this treaty because of its potential infringement on our right to keep and bear arms. You may be pleased to know that on July 22, 2011 I joined 44 of my Senate colleagues in sending a letter to President Obama and Secretary Clinton opposing ratification of the ATT. I also joined 50 of my colleagues on July 26, 2012 in sending another letter to President Obama and Secretary Clinton reaffirming my opposition to this treaty.

In addition, Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) introduced S. 2205 on March 19, 2012. Among its provisions, this measure expresses the sense of Congress that U.S. sovereignty and the constitutionally protected freedoms of American gun owners must be upheld and not be undermined by the ATT. I am a cosponsor of S. 2205, which is currently pending before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Although I am not a member of this committee, please be assured that I will continue working with my Senate colleagues on advancing this legislation and protecting Second Amendment rights.

Thank you again for your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.

Nice to see you received timely, detailed responses. I'm confident that ATT will be rejected by the Congress, but still want to settle the issue as to force of law regarding signed but unratified treaties.

But the response from Kelly is meaningless, since the House of Representatives has NO responsibilty in the ratification of treaties.

Does that mean that this portion of his letter of reply:

'Furthermore, a number of treaties are "non-self-executing treaties" meaning that they require implementation by both chambers of Congress – the Senate and the House of Representatives – before they can take effect as domestic law. Many treaties whose subject matter overlaps with Congress' lawmaking authority under Article I of the Constitution are non-self-executing treaties'

...was untrue? Or just that you don't think the ATT falls under the 'non-self-executing' type?

'Furthermore, a number of treaties are "non-self-executing treaties" meaning that they require implementation by both chambers of Congress – the Senate and the House of Representatives – before they can take effect as domestic law. Many treaties whose subject matter overlaps with Congress' lawmaking authority under Article I of the Constitution are non-self-executing treaties'

...was untrue? Or just that you don't think the ATT falls under the 'non-self-executing' type?

A non-self-executing treaty is one that would require additional legislation to implement the means of abiding by the treaty.

For example the U.S. and Lower Slobbovia sign a "Non-Aggression Treaty". The treaty is refered to the Senate and is ratified by the required 2/3rds vote of the Senators present. The treaty is now in full effect, no further legislation is needed and remains so as long as the U.S. and Lower Slobbovia do not attack each other.

But, the ATT required additional legislation to fully implement it. Registration and licensing of arms manufacturers and a means of governmental approval for the export of all arms as an example. In this case the House of Representatives would have a hand in creating these new laws, but not have a hand in ratifying the treaty itself.

But, the ATT required additional legislation to fully implement it. Registration and licensing of arms manufacturers and a means of governmental approval for the export of all arms as an example. In this case the House of Representatives would have a hand in creating these new laws, but not have a hand in ratifying the treaty itself.

Makes sense. Quite interesting...learn something new everyday. I figured something like this process would have to come into play, and that the simple signing wouldn't and couldn't just automatically 'change' things in the flick of a pen...it would take a lot of crap beyond that to implement this type of thing.